The frustrating economics of aviation

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message ink.net...
Well, if you are a trial lawyer, you can't be a very good one. :-)
Trial lawyers are usually way too smart to make a point by forming a
comment that takes an individual (Henrique) and portrays that individual
in a hypothetical group (them and their ilk); which is a glittering
generalization; then in the next sentence, demands specifics. That's
hysterically funny!!!!
You were doing fine until you reached for that "them and their ilk" bit.
Here's a clue for your "next case".
Glittering generalization has no place in trial law. Actually, it has
no place in intelligent dialog either :-))))

Well, of course neither Tom nor Dudley have given any response to the
original issue; rather, just ad hominum attacks on the author. That
should settle who is right. In the courtroom, we have an argument that
carries some logical weight: "There are two things that a jury must
consider-the law and the facts. If the law is against the lawyer,
pound on the facts. If the facts are against him, pound on the law.
If both the law and the facts are against him, pound on the other
lawyer." "Nuff said."

Tom's response is his usual insipid personal insult when he is beat
(often), and deserves no response. Dudley's response is similarly
without substance. There is no generalization; my observation about
his (lack of) facts and supportable opinion and those of his ilk (like
Tom) is proven by the "content" of his response.

smackey wrote:

As mr Sondrecker requested- let's have some facts. Opinionated
diatribe by Henrique and others without facts is prety much the order
of the day for them and their ilk. PLEASE-give me some specifics!!!
There aren't any. The American judicial system based upon the
centuries-old concept of a jury of one's peers is second to none.

FACT: The American Insurance Association published a report " Premium
Deceit: The Failure of 'Tort Reform' to Cut Insurance Prices"
(March,2002), which found, following a 14 year study, that there was
no relation between tort restrictions and insurance rates.
This study was consistent with the National Association of
Attorneys General:
"The facts do not bear out the allegations of an explosion in
litigation or in claim size, nor do they bear out the
allegations of a financial disaster suffered by property/casualty
insurers today. They finally do not support any correlation between
the current crisis in availability and affordability of insurance and
such litigation explosion. The available data indicate that the
causes of, and therefore solutions to, the current crisis lie with the
insurance industry itself."

It is pretty amusing that a (self-proclaimed) tort lawyer posts to an aviation forum, of all places, to say that tort reform
is not needed. It is ironic because aviation is one of the few industries that have had protections placed against jackpot
justice tort suits, with stellar results. You don't need an insurance industry study to learn that Cessna built a new
factory and started building piston airplanes again after the General Aviation Revitalization Act, with its statue of repose,
was made law. Or that Piper was able to have a fighting chance of keeping insurance and emerging from bankruptcy
successfully.

And then the same tort engineer proclaims that protectins against jackpot justice don't reduce insurance costs. Sure that's
why my father, previously an orthopedic surgeon in Nevada had to move to California. California doesn't allow unlimited
punitive damages and its malpractice insurance premiums are orders of magnitude lower than Nevada as a result. That's if you
can get malpractice insurance at all. It was either move or leave the medical profession. A friend of his in Nevada had to
stop practicing altogether even though he loved to treat people. Neither of them had either been sued. And that story is
being repeated around the country in many states. Yet the special interest tort engineers, assisted by their paid peers in
the legislators, insist that tort reform does not help. This is in spite of the fact of the success in states such as
California and Lousiana. Good thing we have tort men like John Edwards who successfully convince juries that innocent
doctors are responsible for celebral palsy as they collect their 40% of millions and millions of jackpot money. No small
wonder why so many hospitals can't afford the insurance they need to stay in business and are closing left and right across
the country.

I'm afraid you're wrong. The costs of obtaining a pilots license is due
to outrageous insurance requirements due to RIDICULOUS and incessant
endless litigation by ambulance chasers and greedy individuals. These
costs are passed along in the form of higher costs for everything
and of course, the little guy ends up paying it.

The actual requirements to obtain a pilots license are, in reality,
fairly minimal. Look how easy it is to get a drivers license and then
look at how many people are killed in automobiles every day. You
don't hear about it on the news because it Isn't news... dozens die
every day across the country in motor vehicles.

Flying is safer (per passenger mile) than traveling in cars, trains
and yes, even boats. The reason it has that record is in part because
the requirement are more stringent.

You need to focus your energy on tort reform... then you'll have more
money in your pocket so you could afford flying lessons. Litigation
causes us to pay higher prices for everything, not just aviation.

in article , kontiki at
wrote on 7/17/04 10:29 AM:


You need to focus your energy on tort reform... then you'll have more
money in your pocket so you could afford flying lessons. Litigation
causes us to pay higher prices for everything, not just aviation.

The problem with any discussion of tort reform or "frivolous" lawsuits is
that nobody is ever willing to get into specifics. No one's willing to
define what "frivolous" actually means (aside, of course, from the fact that
it's never THEIR lawsuit) , or what percentage of lawsuits they consider to
be so.

Well, how about it? Anyone willing to submit some actual hard data? Let's
get specific for once--what percentage of lawsuits are "frivolous"? And what
are your precise criteria for determining their frivolity? Remember, no
anecdotes allowed--I don't wanna hear about the McDonald's coffee lady.
Let's see some numbers.

"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , kontiki at
wrote on 7/17/04 10:29 AM:


You need to focus your energy on tort reform... then you'll have
more
money in your pocket so you could afford flying lessons. Litigation
causes us to pay higher prices for everything, not just aviation.

The problem with any discussion of tort reform or "frivolous" lawsuits
is
that nobody is ever willing to get into specifics. No one's willing to
define what "frivolous" actually means (aside, of course, from the
fact that
it's never THEIR lawsuit) , or what percentage of lawsuits they
consider to
be so.

Well, how about it? Anyone willing to submit some actual hard data?
Let's
get specific for once--what percentage of lawsuits are "frivolous"?
And what
are your precise criteria for determining their frivolity? Remember,
no
anecdotes allowed--I don't wanna hear about the McDonald's coffee
lady.
Let's see some numbers.

Forcing people to produce specifics that they have no access to isn't
the way to deal with this issue. The fact is that a definition of
"frivolous" can't actually be determined since it's subject to
individual interpretation. Who's to say what is frivolous and what's
not? That's the beauty of the lawyer's position; a position BTW that you
have presented so deftly here I might add :-)

Besides....I LOVE anecdotes.....and forget about the coffee lady. Hell,
that's only ONE example of the way the system works:-)

Rather than searching for a non existent legal definition for
"frivolous" as you are suggesting, let me put forth for you a slightly
different approach.

Ten people are lined up in front of a man with a machine gun. The man
starts at one end of the line, faces the first person and asks,
"Do you like bananas?"
"No", says number one.
The man with the gun promptly cuts the first guy in half in a rain of
bullets. His bloody body or what's left of it crumples to the ground in
a pool of blood and gore.
Now the man with the machine gun stands in front of number 2.
He asks, "How bout it....do YOU like bananas?
"No", says number two.
The man with the gun promptly cuts HIM in half in a rain of bullets. His
head separates from his body; the eyes are completely shot out; and the
upper cervical gleams snow white in the sun as what's left of number two
crumples to the ground stone cold dead.

You are number three and next in line. The man stands in front of YOU
and asks, "Tell me there number three, what do YOU think about bananas?"
Now tell me the God's honest truth here ole'buddy, just WHAT the living
hell are YOU going to tell this guy about bananas???? :-)))))

This scenario is more than sufficient for anyone with average
intelligence to understand all the "specifics about frivolous lawsuits"
they'll EVER need to understand in one life time!!! :-)))

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

in article , Dudley
Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 11:35 AM:


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...

The problem with any discussion of tort reform or "frivolous" lawsuits
is
that nobody is ever willing to get into specifics. No one's willing to
define what "frivolous" actually means (aside, of course, from the
fact that
it's never THEIR lawsuit) , or what percentage of lawsuits they
consider to
be so.

Well, how about it? Anyone willing to submit some actual hard data?
Let's
get specific for once--what percentage of lawsuits are "frivolous"?
And what
are your precise criteria for determining their frivolity? Remember,
no
anecdotes allowed--I don't wanna hear about the McDonald's coffee
lady.
Let's see some numbers.

Forcing people to produce specifics that they have no access to isn't
the way to deal with this issue. The fact is that a definition of
"frivolous" can't actually be determined since it's subject to
individual interpretation. Who's to say what is frivolous and what's
not? That's the beauty of the lawyer's position; a position BTW that you
have presented so deftly here I might add :-)

Thank you. So, how can we expect to ever enact any kind of meaningful tort
reform if we can't even come up with a definition of what needs to be
reformed? And if forcing people to be more specific is not the answer, then
what is? Being vague?

"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...
in article , Dudley
Henriques at wrote on 7/17/04 11:35 AM:


"Philip Sondericker" wrote in message
...

The problem with any discussion of tort reform or "frivolous"
lawsuits
is
that nobody is ever willing to get into specifics. No one's willing
to
define what "frivolous" actually means (aside, of course, from the
fact that
it's never THEIR lawsuit) , or what percentage of lawsuits they
consider to
be so.

Well, how about it? Anyone willing to submit some actual hard data?
Let's
get specific for once--what percentage of lawsuits are "frivolous"?
And what
are your precise criteria for determining their frivolity?
Remember,
no
anecdotes allowed--I don't wanna hear about the McDonald's coffee
lady.
Let's see some numbers.

Forcing people to produce specifics that they have no access to
isn't
the way to deal with this issue. The fact is that a definition of
"frivolous" can't actually be determined since it's subject to
individual interpretation. Who's to say what is frivolous and what's
not? That's the beauty of the lawyer's position; a position BTW that
you
have presented so deftly here I might add :-)

Thank you. So, how can we expect to ever enact any kind of meaningful
tort
reform if we can't even come up with a definition of what needs to be
reformed? And if forcing people to be more specific is not the answer,
then
what is? Being vague?

I hardly think that recognizing a problem exists without forcing the
general public into a scientifically provable analysis that they can't
hope to produce is being vague. I don't need the world to fall on me to
know that lawyers are a problem in the United States. I only need my two
eyes, two ears, and my natural intelligence as that applies to deductive
reasoning. :-)
It's a flawed premise I think to demand that a problem doesn't exist
just because individuals without access can't produce these "facts".
It's also flawed to demand that people know how to fix the problem they
know exists.
But recognizing that a problem exists is the first step in fixing it.
Hell, I have no idea how to determine the extent of frivolous lawsuits
and their damage to the country's business environment, but I know it
has, and does cause damage...tremendous damage. I only have to talk to
the many friends I have in business to determine this.
This isn't vague. It's rock solid evidence.
Example; we have a close friend, a neuro surgeon. He's actually leaving
our state and moving to another because he literally can't afford his
malpractice insurance. He's an excellent doctor. On the other hand, we
have in our state a malpractice attorney who owns not one, but multiple
airplanes, and employs an army of people simply to maintain them for his
flying "pleasure". He lives in one of the most expensive areas in our
state. He's worth millions...and he is just ONE lawyer engaged in
malpractice law. Now you tell me, do you REALLY think there's enough
legitimate malpractice in my area to support this lawyer's
lifestyle....and the bevy of other lawyers who are engaged in this
"practice"? I don't know about you, but I don't need a house to fall on
me to understand that medical malpractice lawsuits are a HUGE
contributor to my medical costs as passed on to me by my insurer, and I
don't believe for one instant that there is enough actual malpractice
going on to justify these lawyers getting so rich on it.
It all boils down to the basics as I see it. The smart lawyers create
the system so they can use the system to get rich. The system relies on
stupid people sharing in the lawyers greed. The lawyers then use the
stupid people to fill their pockets. The remaining demographic for the
people is then split up into sections; the people whom the lawyers have
used, and the people the lawyers haven't used. The problem is that the
people who have been used by the lawyers have gained to their added
wealth at the expense of the people who don't get used by the lawyers.
The lawyers could care less!!! There are always enough of the greedy
people to be used for the lawyers purposes.
It's a perfect system for the lawyers........until the day they bleed
the system dry.....just as they have bled it dry for our doctor friend
who is moving on.
I have no doubt that General Aviation will follow our doctor friend
someday, unless something is done to take the lawyers out of the GA cost
equation....and I'm not betting too highly on that one.......are YOU??
:-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Forcing people to produce specifics that they have no access to isn't
the way to deal with this issue. The fact is that a definition of
"frivolous" can't actually be determined since it's subject to
individual interpretation. Who's to say what is frivolous and what's
not? That's the beauty of the lawyer's position; a position BTW that you
have presented so deftly here I might add :-)

Thank you. So, how can we expect to ever enact any kind of meaningful tort
reform if we can't even come up with a definition of what needs to be
reformed? And if forcing people to be more specific is not the answer,
then
what is? Being vague?


My lay knowledge of class action tort is that it is damage to a group
or class of people. Seems to me our flying community (not just the newsgroup
but the community as a whole) constitutes a class. Seems to me that our
class is damaged every time an exhorbitant settlement or even judgement
occurs. In many cases, the settlement seems more like extortion than
justice. In the end, we are damaged because insurance costs skyrocket; We
are damaged in that vendors leave the aviation business resulting in higher
parts costs due to restricted competition. We are damaged because aircraft
manufacturers jack prices to cover their insurance. We are damaged when more
restrictions are placed on our flying. Yadda, Yadda, Yadda.....
Seems to me an actionable tort lies in there. I know we must have a
legal pundit or two in our group -- what say you?
I s'pose the biggest problem would be to find a lawyer willing to sue
another lawyer.

Well..... That felt good.

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 at 19:02:47 in message
, Philip Sondericker
wrote:
Thank you. So, how can we expect to ever enact any kind of meaningful tort
reform if we can't even come up with a definition of what needs to be
reformed? And if forcing people to be more specific is not the answer, then
what is? Being vague?

Perhaps it is not so much a matter of defining frivolous, as defining
how much responsibility individuals are expected to take for their own
protection. The reasonable man should assume that the pavement (sorry
sidewalk) may have badly aligned slabs. If he trips he should have kept
a better look out. Individuals should accept responsibility for
undertaking somewhat hazardous activities.

Should G.A. be accepted as a personal risk for example? We are entitled
to believe that public transport is responsible for our safety. If we
are passengers we should not be able to sue the private pilot unless we
have been deceived although a third party causing an accident would be
different.

Of course that approach might be bad for G.A. Anyway?

(UK TV has nightly adverts from legal firms asking if you have had an
accident and offering no-win no-fee terms. We seem to have inherited all
your litigation bad habits over here in the UK .)

;-)
--
David CL Francis

Thank you. So, how can we expect to ever enact any kind of meaningful tort
reform if we can't even come up with a definition of what needs to be
reformed? And if forcing people to be more specific is not the answer, then
what is? Being vague?


It's not only a matter of frivolous, it's also a matter of a complete
lack of logic an common sense. Just look at the recent suit where the
vacuum pump manufacturer got burned at the stake even though the
vacuum pump performed as advertised. How that can happen is beyond
what my feeble mind can process.

Rich Russell